The DI/VI Naming Debate

[Overtaken]

I prefer vectoring. It is clear, concise and illustrative. Vector Influencing seems to have been created out of this need to build a compromise between the Vectoring people and the Directional Influence people. But the people claiming this is Directional Influence are wrong and don't know what they are talking about, so I don't see why there has to be a compromise term. Knockback influence is a little stillborn too because it seems to be shy of a shorter word that perfectly describes what is going on and also has the unfortunate KI abbreviation. Vectoring is A-OK with me and that's what I will be calling it. Just plain ol' V.

Well it is important to 'compromise' as you put it. It communicates that it is fulfilling a similar role as DI, or replacing it. Had DI been called "angling" for instance, then I would probably argue for "vectoring" here.

 

[Conda]

This need for differentiation isn't a need, its a want. And its caused by people deep down exaggerating the differences.

New DI is not a different GAME mechanic - the thing developers make to add dimension to a game. It takes the same spot and plays the same role from a gameplay perspective. It has different implications due to new math, but it is not new conceptually.

Its like saying the new iphone cant be called an iphone anymore, because it has nothing technically the same as what was in the first iphone.


Also, nobody freaks out when differentiating between melee and brawl air dodges. And we also never have to, because we are always discussing a fight in one of the games - not both games at the same time. We never commentate melee and brawl fights side by side at the same time.

At tournaments, you never need to include both in the same sentence. Same goes for DI.

 

[Zebra Dragon]

VI IS a different game mechanic, even if it fills the same role. Also, nobody freaks out when differentiating between melee and brawl air dodge because the terminology isn't incorrect. if it was called air dash or something similar , you bet it would have warranted a name changing debate.

 

[Ravio_Yo]

VI rhymes with DI, so I prefer it to KI.

 

[TL?]

I made a giant post about this in the other thread. Here it is:

Regardless of what we call it, "Vector, Vectoring, VI" is not the best way to name it. Here's why:

1) Those terms are too technical. When we name something we should try to convey the concept of it in layman's terms. Names like "short hop", "fast falling", "air dodge", "spot dodge", and "edge guarding" are examples of good naming. If you were unfamiliar with "short hopping" and hear it, you would assume it's jumping but shorter. When some people hear "vectoring", it means nothing to them. Even some people who know what vectoring is will have a lot of questions still. @ Chiroz argues that it takes a few seconds to google, "vector", but that is too much. You don't have to look anything up to get the concept of a "short hop" or a "fast fall". Having to look something up breaks up a natural in-person conversation as well. It just adds in extra questions in between finding out how to use the mechanic. We can name it such that it requires no technical terms, so why have the extra step? We should name things as intuitively as possible. This new version/replacement of DI is easier to grasp, why give it a more difficult name?

2) Looking up the terms "vector" and "vectoring" I get(From Google search: "define vector, define vectoring":
Vector: a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.
Vectoring: direct (an aircraft in flight) to a desired point.

This new DI definitely involves vectoring. The problem is that so does the old DI. You change the trajectory, but essentially that results in changing the vector. Just because speed/magnitude in this case does not change doesn't mean it doesn't have it. Arguably all movement in smash is vectoring, whether that is running, walking, rolling, or jumping. You are moving towards a desired point. The new replacement for DI is not the only instance of vectoring in smash, and it would be misleading and potentially confusing to name it that.

3) Calling it "vectoring" makes it sound like it's an exploit or something that's not supposed part of the game when it's clearly an intentional mechanic. I know this one sounds really silly but we've all seen the people hating on wavedashing that clearly don't understand what it is. We all know how many people still think it's a glitch, and I wouldn't be surprised if people think the same of "vectoring" if we call it that, as little sense as it would make. It really doesn't sound like something you'd ever see in the instructions of a game like this.

Personally I think the best choices are keeping DI, or using Knockback Influence(KI).

The case for DI:

1) The most obvious reason is that it's already an accepted term. To a lot of people DI simply describes the phenomenon of holding a direction to alter where you end up during knockback. When people say things like "DI down", in this and previous smash games, it still means hold down on the control stick. It still serves the same purposes. You hold a direction so you survive longer, or to escape combos/strings/followups. Even though the implementation has changed and knockback is altered in addition to direction, the term still works.

2) "Directional influence" can be adapted. Terms don't have to mean exactly what they always have. To a lot of people "L canceling" meant pressing L to cancel landing lag, but it seems that now the more accepted version is that "L cancel" is simply short for "Lag cancel" since it can be done with any shield button. We call tilt attacks tilts, despite the fact that you aren't really tilting a 3ds slide pad, you are just sliding it halfway or slowly. The term still works if people know what you mean. It still makes sense to say, "directional influence is holding a direction to influence your knockback in terms of trajectory AND speed".

3) But won't people get confused if we call it DI and it works differently in the different games? No. Plenty of things work differently in the different smash games. Air dodging, Smash DI, grab releases, ledge mechanics, hitstun canceling, and many aspects of the movement. Things change, things get revamped, that doesn't mean everything has to be renamed. An air dodge is still an air dodge in this game, but we acknowledged that they are quicker and have landing lag now, just like how we acknowledged that they were no longer directional or caused free fall in brawl. Our mechanic for having some control over our knockback has undoubtly changed in this game, but it has arguably been revamped or overhauled and not replaced.

4) Funny enough, if you look up "vector" on thesaurus.com, it returns the following words as synonyms: "trajectory", "direction".

The case for Knockback Influence (KI):

1) Many people in this thread have suggested "Knockback Influence" or "KI". I think this best describes what's happening. It's direct with it's name, and works semantically. "Knockback" is a level above direction. It includes direction while also including the other relevant things to the mechanic like speed so it's perfect. It also right away tells us that we're referring to the knockback itself. With DI or Vectoring, you might at first think that plenty of things in this game involve directions and vectors or vectoring. With "knockback" influence it intuitively implies what you are influencing to more detail(the trajectory and/or speed of your knockback). It conveys the most information, and it does so in layman's terms. The only downside I see here is getting an entire community on board to adopt this. Also it sounds like Killer Instict, but come on.


In case there's any ambiguity left:
I think referring to it as "DI, but it's been revamped" works just fine and is the easiest road to go down. I also acknowledge that a lot of people in this thread are strictly opposed to keeping "DI". All things considered I think "Knockback Influence (KI)" is the best term semantically and intuitively for the mechanic, and the best compromise overall. The only trouble is getting everyone to adopt it.

 

[Overtaken]

@ TL?

I see your points but I'd like to offer a rebuttle.

1. This is definitely the strongest point, to say we could get away with calling it DI. We could call it anything as long as it's accepted and understood. But is it most practical in the long run? It's not like adapting it to 'VI' is convoluted or that big of a deal either.

2. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isnt this a reiteration of the first point.

3. The point however is that the input and stategy is completely different now. They may rescipt the engine between games, but if hitting the x button causes the same effect, and the way it's used is the same, calling it 'jump' is just fine. The new name reflects that it's not just a cosmetic or scriptural change, but that you actually have to approach it differently, the button input and strategy is different.

4. It does seem to me that from what I understand, what we have historically called 'directional influence' would have been better named 'angular influence', granted 'AI' could be too easily confused with 'artifical intelligence'. But whether we name it something different or not, there is always going to be a need to distinguish between them, we'll just end up having to say 'smash 4 DI' half the time.

 

[Minty_]

Long, well-reasoned post

IRTWT. TLDR: Read the p**ping post!

But in all seriousness, I was completely, 100% for calling it Vegan Vector Influence, Vectoring, VI, ect. I don't like the idea of "dumbing down" speech as a compromise with ignorance. However, and this is a biiig however - I also very strongly believe in creating a environment in the Smash community that is not just welcoming, but engouraging of new players. I firmly believe the most important thing for Smash is growing the community. This might seem contradictory to what I above stated, but that is another discussion for another day and a different place.

So, in short, you've changed my mind and I mostly agree with you. Well done. I still don't like calling it DI, but KI is acceptable.

Unfortunately, Vector ect. seems to be catching on and it might be too late to DI the community's terminology.

 

[TL?]

@ TL?

I see your points but I'd like to offer a rebuttle.

1. This is definitely the strongest point, to say we could get away with calling it DI. We could call it anything as long as it's accepted and understood. But is it most practical in the long run? It's not like adapting it to 'VI' is convoluted or that big of a deal either.

2. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isnt this a reiteration of the first point.

3. The point however is that the input and stategy is completely different now. They may rescipt the engine between games, but if hitting the x button causes the same effect, and the way it's used is the same, calling it 'jump' is just fine. The new name reflects that it's not just a cosmetic or scriptural change, but that you actually have to approach it differently, the button input and strategy is different.

4. It does seem to me that from what I understand, what we have historically called 'directional influence' would have been better named 'angular influence', granted 'AI' could be too easily confused with 'artifical intelligence'. But whether we name it something different or not, there is always going to be a need to distinguish between them, we'll just end up having to say 'smash 4 DI' half the time.

Points 1 and 2 are similar. Point 1 was about DI being a more general term to a lot of people. Point 2 was about we can change the term a little bit or that it doesn't have to work semantically 100% for the people who didn't think of it as a more general term.

In response to 3. The strategy is pretty much the same, you just execute it differently. Hold a direction to live longer. Hold a direction to escape combos or make your opponent guess on followups. The change here is which direction to hold. You also have a bigger range of control. It's different, but not completely different.

Even though I argued for DI and personally like it, I understand why others are against it. I acknowledge the new implementation is different, but the argument here seems to settle on "how different?". To me it's a reworking of DI and not a replacement. It's also a lot easier to keep our current terms than to replace them across the community. But again, I understand why people don't like DI for this. Overall, I'm not really for "DI", just against using vectoring. My main point is that Knockback Influence(KI) would be a great compromise and is also a better name than DI or VI for this. People have issues with calling it vectoring/VI, and people have issues with keeping DI. But I don't really see anyone strictly opposed to KI.

 

[Conda]

I know a lot of people are going to call it DI and some who will also call it VI. We'll have to get used to both terms. Both sides have presented their side and reasoning - some want to just keep the old word because it still makes sense and is easy to explain to newcomers (wow, that's some community-oriented thoughtfulness going on! ), and some for the new word because it is technically more descriptive (not that any of our names had to be 'technically' descriptive up to this precise point).


We'll have to understand that both words refer to the same thing in Smash 4. Not a big deal.


I'm obviously biased. Hey, I'm not a judge or anything! I just believe keeping it real and simple and down to earth is the best course of action for technical mechanic naming - both for purposes of commentary, conversation, and bringing new players into our inclusive community.


"Vectoring" communicates an amount of exclusivity and intimidation to new players that DI does not, due to how obtuse it is in the context of a videogame. None of you are intending it, I'm sure. You're all good people and awesome members of this community.
If you rename any simple game mechanic something mathematical and conceptually empty, you alienate newcomers who want to learn about the game, the vibe the community has, and how they speak about their game.

For example, if I was curious about the competitive Super Mario 3D World community and I found out that they call repeated longjump-based movement "Accelerated X-Y Momentum Influence", I'd be on my out in an instant. Eyes rolling and all. When I think about getting competitve with SM3DW, "Accelerated X-Y Momentum Influence" isn't where I'd expect the community's personality and energy to be. Surely not the vibe I'm looking for - a fun competitive community that cares about naming in-game concepts so they are approachable to new players.

When new players learn about the competitive Smash community, it's a surprising enough thing as it is. To THEN discover that the players call a movement mechanic in the game "Vectoring" - a super mathematical and unnatural mechanic for a post-knockback-adjustment mechanic in a nintendo fighting game - just gives off the wrong vibe and a needlessly intimidating impression.

But it's not even an incorrect impression - there really are a bunch of people who do feel that sticking to technical and mathematical names is the direction the community should go. Perhaps new players really are justified in feeling part of this competitive community is intimidating,

Keep in mind my perspective is one of a smash commentator and content maker - the community experience is my main focus, and that's where I'm coming from. I realise other posters here may be focused on different things, which is perfectly fine.

 

[Chiroz]

I made a giant post about this in the other thread. Here it is:

Regardless of what we call it, "Vector, Vectoring, VI" is not the best way to name it. Here's why:

1) Those terms are too technical. When we name something we should try to convey the concept of it in layman's terms. Names like "short hop", "fast falling", "air dodge", "spot dodge", and "edge guarding" are examples of good naming. If you were unfamiliar with "short hopping" and hear it, you would assume it's jumping but shorter. When some people hear "vectoring", it means nothing to them. Even some people who know what vectoring is will have a lot of questions still. @ Chiroz argues that it takes a few seconds to google, "vector", but that is too much. You don't have to look anything up to get the concept of a "short hop" or a "fast fall". Having to look something up breaks up a natural in-person conversation as well. It just adds in extra questions in between finding out how to use the mechanic. We can name it such that it requires no technical terms, so why have the extra step? We should name things as intuitively as possible. This new version/replacement of DI is easier to grasp, why give it a more difficult name?

2) Looking up the terms "vector" and "vectoring" I get(From Google search: "define vector, define vectoring":
Vector: a quantity having direction as well as magnitude, especially as determining the position of one point in space relative to another.
Vectoring: direct (an aircraft in flight) to a desired point.

This new DI definitely involves vectoring. The problem is that so does the old DI. You change the trajectory, but essentially that results in changing the vector. Just because speed/magnitude in this case does not change doesn't mean it doesn't have it. Arguably all movement in smash is vectoring, whether that is running, walking, rolling, or jumping. You are moving towards a desired point. The new replacement for DI is not the only instance of vectoring in smash, and it would be misleading and potentially confusing to name it that.

3) Calling it "vectoring" makes it sound like it's an exploit or something that's not supposed part of the game when it's clearly an intentional mechanic. I know this one sounds really silly but we've all seen the people hating on wavedashing that clearly don't understand what it is. We all know how many people still think it's a glitch, and I wouldn't be surprised if people think the same of "vectoring" if we call it that, as little sense as it would make. It really doesn't sound like something you'd ever see in the instructions of a game like this.

Personally I think the best choices are keeping DI, or using Knockback Influence(KI).

The case for DI:

1) The most obvious reason is that it's already an accepted term. To a lot of people DI simply describes the phenomenon of holding a direction to alter where you end up during knockback. When people say things like "DI down", in this and previous smash games, it still means hold down on the control stick. It still serves the same purposes. You hold a direction so you survive longer, or to escape combos/strings/followups. Even though the implementation has changed and knockback is altered in addition to direction, the term still works.

2) "Directional influence" can be adapted. Terms don't have to mean exactly what they always have. To a lot of people "L canceling" meant pressing L to cancel landing lag, but it seems that now the more accepted version is that "L cancel" is simply short for "Lag cancel" since it can be done with any shield button. We call tilt attacks tilts, despite the fact that you aren't really tilting a 3ds slide pad, you are just sliding it halfway or slowly. The term still works if people know what you mean. It still makes sense to say, "directional influence is holding a direction to influence your knockback in terms of trajectory AND speed".

3) But won't people get confused if we call it DI and it works differently in the different games? No. Plenty of things work differently in the different smash games. Air dodging, Smash DI, grab releases, ledge mechanics, hitstun canceling, and many aspects of the movement. Things change, things get revamped, that doesn't mean everything has to be renamed. An air dodge is still an air dodge in this game, but we acknowledged that they are quicker and have landing lag now, just like how we acknowledged that they were no longer directional or caused free fall in brawl. Our mechanic for having some control over our knockback has undoubtly changed in this game, but it has arguably been revamped or overhauled and not replaced.

4) Funny enough, if you look up "vector" on thesaurus.com, it returns the following words as synonyms: "trajectory", "direction".

The case for Knockback Influence (KI):

1) Many people in this thread have suggested "Knockback Influence" or "KI". I think this best describes what's happening. It's direct with it's name, and works semantically. "Knockback" is a level above direction. It includes direction while also including the other relevant things to the mechanic like speed so it's perfect. It also right away tells us that we're referring to the knockback itself. With DI or Vectoring, you might at first think that plenty of things in this game involve directions and vectors or vectoring. With "knockback" influence it intuitively implies what you are influencing to more detail(the trajectory and/or speed of your knockback). It conveys the most information, and it does so in layman's terms. The only downside I see here is getting an entire community on board to adopt this. Also it sounds like Killer Instict, but come on.


In case there's any ambiguity left:
I think referring to it as "DI, but it's been revamped" works just fine and is the easiest road to go down. I also acknowledge that a lot of people in this thread are strictly opposed to keeping "DI". All things considered I think "Knockback Influence (KI)" is the best term semantically and intuitively for the mechanic, and the best compromise overall. The only trouble is getting everyone to adopt it.

Just going to say, if you don't have the time to look up Vector in google then you obviously won't look up DI either, thus you would keep believing it's the old DI and thus you won't know what's going on and get completely confused which is exactly my point.

 

[Rᴏb]

This is a really funny thread.

 

[Conda]

Just going to say, if you don't have the time to look up Vector in google then you obviously won't look up DI either, thus you would keep believing it's the old DI and thus you won't know what's going on and get completely confused which is exactly my point.

Keep in mind, in the other VI thread, you say this:

Actually this helps casual play very much. He literally made "DI" into what we all think the game does subconsciously. Before actually looking up and learning the Smash terms everyone always feels that "tilting the control stick in the opposite direction" will help you survive. At least I know I did and most of my casual friends did.

If people got the wrong impression that DI in melee/brawl worked the way DI now works in Smash 4 just by learning the term "Directional Influence" - does that not make DI the perfect word to use now in Smash 4? Now that it actually works this way?

You're literally saying that "DI" accurately communicates what Vectoring actually does in Smash 4, and that you don't even need to look it up - because "he literally made "DI" into what we all think the game does." You admit people didn't even have to do research to feel that DI works the way it now does in Smash 4, just due to how clear and quick the term "directional influence" is to learn.

So why, again, the need for a new name if you are admitting that people who learnt the name "DI - Directional Influence" thought the mechanic works the way it does now in Smash 4?
Does that not mean DI effectively communicates the Smash 4 mechanic? If many people thought this is how it worked back then, just going off of the name "directional influence"?

 

[Chiroz]

Keep in mind, in the other VI thread, you say this:



If people got the wrong impression that DI in melee/brawl worked the way DI now works in Smash 4 just by learning the term "Directional Influence" - does that not make DI the perfect word to use now in Smash 4? Now that it actually works this way?

You're literally saying that "DI" accurately communicates what Vectoring actually does in Smash 4, and that you don't even need to look it up - because "he literally made "DI" into what we all think the game does." You admit people didn't even have to do research to feel that DI works the way it now does in Smash 4, just due to how clear and quick the term "directional influence" is to learn.

So why, again, the need for a new name if you are admitting that people who learnt the name "DI - Directional Influence" thought the mechanic works the way it does now in Smash 4?
Does that not mean DI effectively communicates the Smash 4 mechanic? If many people thought this is how it worked back then, just going off of the name "directional influence"?

No, I didn't say people thought the term DI did what it does now I was saying that people believe that VI has existed since the beginning of time. It's like when you play a racing game and you move the controller left and right when turning. Moving the controller does nothing (unless you're playing some motion sensor racing in the Wii) yet you still did it. Sakurai basically made "DI" or "VI" or however you want to call it into what we all did subconsciously before learning what DI was.



Anyways the confusion I've spoken of since the first time is not about new players who only play Smash 4, it's about casual veterans who won't understand it's a new mechanic. They will read "DI" and think they already know it and will not learn the differences (or will misread and get confused), whereas if it was a different name they'd get curious and learn about it. That's very clearly expressed in my post.

 

[Conda]

No, I didn't say people thought the term DI did what it does now I was saying that people believe that VI has existed since the beginning of time. It's like when you play a racing game and you move the controller left and right when turning. Moving the controller does nothing (unless you're playing some motion sensor racing in the Wii) yet you still did it. Sakurai basically made "DI" or "VI" or however you want to call it into what we all did subconsciously before learning what DI was.



Anyways the confusion I've spoken of since the first time is not about new players who only play Smash 4, it's about casual veterans who won't understand it's a new mechanic. That's very clearly expressed in my post.

For me, all I've needed to say is "it works differently now - it lets you change distance more than direction, but you still input a direction to counteract knockback. Just hold against the knockback direction"

Bam. If I say it's called 'vectoring' I have to explain what a vector is and the math and all that crap that honestly has zero benefit in knowing, which makes it a meaningless word to include in the name.

 

[Chiroz]

For me, all I've needed to say is "it works differently now - it lets you change distance more than direction, but you still input a direction to counteract knockback. Just hold against the knockback direction"

Bam. If I say it's called 'vectoring' I have to explain what a vector is and the math and all that crap that honestly has zero benefit in knowing, which makes it a meaningless word to include in the name.

No you don't. If you call it VI you can explain the EXACT same thing you just explained there. There difference is if you say DI there are people who won't understand it's different and who will believe they already know the technique. The name you give a technique has nothing to do with what explanation you decide to give.

Also there is a chance that by saying "Vector Influence" they will understand instantly and you have to give NO explanation. So it's actually a superior name in that sense.

 

[Conda]

No you don't. If you call it VI you can explain the EXACT same thing you just explained there. There difference is if you say DI there are people who won't understand it's different and who will believe they already know the technique. The name you give a technique has nothing to do with what explanation you decide to give.

Also there is a chance that by saying "Vector Influence" they will understand instantly and you have to give NO explanation. So it's actually a superior name in that sense.

The only people that would understand 'vector influence' easier than 'directional influence' are math students and people who understand how vectors would be applied to ingame movement physics.
A game developer would never call a movement mechanic in their game "vectoring", but they'd call it something more neutral and clear like "directional influence." My 2 cents.

 

[Chiroz]

The only people that would understand 'vector influence' easier than 'directional influence' are math students and people who understand how vectors would be applied to ingame movement physics.
A game developer would never call a movement mechanic in their game "vectoring", but they'd call it something more neutral and clear like "directional influence." My 2 cents.

The problem is we are talking about people who already know what DI is. If you call it DI they won't know it's different. If you call it VI they will ask: "Wait what is that?". "It's like DI only you control your distance instead of your angle". Simple.

If you call it DI there will also be a group of people who learn it's a different mechanic but when they read your explanation they will think it's still the same mechanic and that you are the one that might have been confused from previous games. It happens. If it has a different name this doesn't happen because they know it's different enough to warrant it's own name so it isn't just you being confused.

The above 2 problems will normally go unnoticed and the player won't learn. Someone not knowing what a vector is will be noticed immediately by himself since he is aware he doesn't know what a vector is. He will then either look it up or ask it and will actually learn the mechanic.

 

[InfiniteTripping]

Well it is important to 'compromise' as you put it. It communicates that it is fulfilling a similar role as DI, or replacing it. Had DI been called "angling" for instance, then I would probably argue for "vectoring" here.

It really is not a similar role at all though. Direction and vector are two completely different things. It's like if you called north, up. It doesn't make any sense to keep calling it directional influence. Adding the word "influence" is just verbiage.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

It really is not a similar role at all though. Direction and vector are two completely different things. It's like if you called north, up. It doesn't make any sense to keep calling it directional influence. Adding the word "influence" is just verbiage.

And "vectoring" isn't verbiage? Especially to the layman?

Smooth Criminal

 

[A Lucky Person]

No matter what I'm still gonna call it sixing.

 

[InfiniteTripping]

And "vectoring" isn't verbiage? Especially to the layman?

Smooth Criminal

I don't think you know what verbiage means. When a single word perfectly and succinctly explains what is going on, it is not verbiage. Adding another word to that is verbiage.

 

[Conda]

It really is not a similar role at all though. Direction and vector are two completely different things. It's like if you called north, up. It doesn't make any sense to keep calling it directional influence. Adding the word "influence" is just verbiage.

What we are talking about is the developer's perspective - this mechanic has the exact same gameplay purpose as DI in the other smash games. It works differently and has different possibilities, but it is the same overarching mechanic.

Like when Oblivion implemented manual shield blocking, different from morrowind's %-based blocking. It was still the game's 'blocking' mechanic that they player could utilize to block attacks. Same with Smash 4's version of DI - it's the same 'gameplay' mechanic.

The problem is we are talking about people who already know what DI is. If you call it DI they won't know it's different. If you call it VI they will ask: "Wait what is that?". "It's like DI only you control your distance instead of your angle". Simple.

If you call it DI there will also be a group of people who learn it's a different mechanic but when they read your explanation they will think it's still the same mechanic and that you are the one that might have been confused from previous games. It happens. If it has a different name this doesn't happen because they know it's different enough to warrant it's own name so it isn't just you being confused.

The above 2 problems will normally go unnoticed and the player won't learn. Someone not knowing what a vector is will be noticed immediately by himself since he is aware he doesn't know what a vector is. He will then either look it up or ask it and will actually learn the mechanic.

This is all supporting my point of some people taking into consideration 'ease of learning' and 'how welcoming the terms are to new smash players'. The vibe in this thread and the other DI thread is that many people don't care that new players - many of whom will not know what 'vectors' mean in regards to game physics - should rightfully have to look it up in the dictionary before integrating themselves into discussions about competitive Smash Bros. That's exactly what I'm against.

It's not inclusive and welcoming to name things in a way that creates barriers communication-wise. If Smash 4 was the first smash game, I'd still be for a name like "DI" because a name with 'direction' and 'influence' describes this mechanic - the mechanic where you input a direction to influence your knockback. It is easy to describe accurately and does not alienate people or give off the inaccurate vibe that we get caught up in technicalities in this community.

But if we are going to get caught up in technicalities from now on, then we should be consistent and rename all of the Smash Bros mechanics to be more technically accurate. Because screw the new players and eloquent wording.

DI is easier to explain to a newcomer, and they'll get it right away. Vectoring is not, because the risk of the player not knowing what a a vector is, or how vectors apply to videogame mechanics, is high. Thus more explanation is required for what is still a very simple mechanic gameplay-wise.

Essentially, it seems like many people have the following outlook: "We need to make the name 'Vectoring', because it is something people should know. If a casual doesn't know what Vectors are, they have to look it up if they want to earn their 'I am a dedicated competitive smash player' Badge".

We shouldn't be building a wall like that for no good reason. It is alienating to new viewers and makes the whole community sound like we take the technicalities in the mechanics much too seriously.

 

[InfiniteTripping]

What we are talking about is the developer's perspective - this mechanic has the exact same gameplay purpose as DI in the other smash games. It works differently and has different possibilities, but it is the same overarching mechanic.
Like when Oblivion implemented manual shield blocking, different from morrowind's %-based blocking. It was still the game's 'blocking' mechanic that they player could utilize to block attacks. Same with Smash 4's version of DI - it's the same 'gameplay' mechanic.

No it's not because it adds magnitude, which means vector is the more appropriate term for what is going on. It is like saying an aircraft only goes in a direction. It is incorrect.

 

[Chiroz]

What we are talking about is the developer's perspective - this mechanic has the exact same gameplay purpose as DI in the other smash games. It works differently and has different possibilities, but it is the same overarching mechanic.

Like when Oblivion implemented manual shield blocking, different from morrowind's %-based blocking. It was still the game's 'blocking' mechanic that they player could utilize to block attacks. Same with Smash 4's version of DI - it's the same 'gameplay' mechanic.




This is all supporting my point of some people taking into consideration 'ease of learning' and 'how welcoming the terms are to new smash players'. If you are saying it's alright and cool that new players, many of whom will not know what 'vectoring' means, should rightfully have to look it up in the dictionary before integrating themselves into Smash Bros competitive discussions - that's exactly what I'm against. It's not inclusive to name things in a way that creates barriers communication-wise.

DI is easier to explain to a newcomer, and they'll get it right away. Vectoring is not, because the risk of the player not knowing what a a vector is, or how vectors apply to videogame mechanics, is high. Thus more explanation is required for what is still a very simple mechanic gameplay-wise.

Essentially, it seems like many people have the following outlook: "We need to make the name 'Vectoring', because it is something people should know. If a casual doesn't know what Vectors are, they have to look it up if they want to earn their 'I am a dedicated competitive smash player' Badge" is absurd. We shouldn't be building a wall like that for no good reason.

Neither is easier to explain because otherwise "Wavedashing" wouldn't exist (As neither the definition of wave or dashing allow you to understand what it does). The name doesn't mean it's harder to explain or learn it just means how easy it is to recognize it. You can learn a technique even if it doesn't have a name, but how do you conver the message of the technique? You are trying to imply that just because the word Vector is on the name people will need a huge explanation when in fact that's incorrect. The point of a name is to make the technique easily recognizable, something that isn't achieved properly by naming it DI.

 

[Conda]

No it's not because it adds magnitude, which means vector is the more appropriate term for what is going on. It is like saying an aircraft only goes in a direction. It is incorrect.

This is the argument that, if from a consistent place, should also be vying for the renaming of a majority of Smash mechanics, in order to make them more technically accurate.

The phenomenon of 'new mechanics being named too-technically' is not new - Brawl had it in spades due to players wishing the game would have cool techs like in Melee. We're taking it too far this time, since we're letting it catch on.

Yes, technical accuracy is good for technical writing, such as on web forums, but a competitive scene where tournament goers and commentators toss around words like vectors, fractionals, additives, and such - is a competitive scene that is being slightly selfishly exclusive and alienating to any audience - whether that audience be potential new competitive players, or general e-sports viewers.

We are forgetting about some fundamentals that should be mattering to us, one of them being "keep it simple and easy for people who want to integrate themselves into our community" -- whether or not they be a forum goer here or a math student. The game ain't really that technical, so let's not put that veil over the game to shoo away people who are interested in learning what competitive smash is all about. That should be our approach to naming - taking others into consideration, not just ourselves (who are very smart mathematical-and-technical thinkers who are very awesome! ). We're just being a little shortsighted and hyperactive.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I don't think you know what verbiage means. When a single word perfectly and succinctly explains what is going on, it is not verbiage. Adding another word to that is verbiage.

You're kinda missing the subtext behind what I'm saying, though. "Vectoring" in and of itself isn't exactly concise. It's more likely to lend itself to verbiage to the average Joe. Nobody needs a bloody physics lesson when they hear the words "directional influence." It speaks for itself. I guess you could say I'm also speaking for the superfluity of this kinda talk. Keep it simple, keep it terse, keep it to the point---that is the best way to indoctrinate people into this community. They can learn the complicated **** later.

So, yeah. Regardless, call it what you want. As long as you understand it, there shouldn't be a problem. This topic is getting kinda tired and circular and semantic. And by "kinda," I mean it's getting grating on all sides.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Chiroz]

You're kinda missing the subtext behind what I'm saying, though. "Vectoring" in and of itself isn't exactly concise. It's more likely to lend itself to verbiage to the average Joe. Nobody needs a bloody physics lesson when they hear the words "directional influence." It speaks for itself. I guess you could say I'm also speaking for the superfluity of this kinda talk.

So, yeah. Regardless, call it what you want. As long as you understand it, there isn't a problem. This topic is getting kinda tired and circular and semantic.

Smooth Criminal

I agree with this. But I also still hold my own theory at heart. Which is why I am not against naming it something other than VI (or Vectoring) as long as we don't just rename it DI.

 

[Conda]

This new version of DI does different things, but from a gameplay perspective, it offers the same "change where you go when you get knocked around" mechanic to the player. This is what we are talking about when we say "it is the same gameplay dynamic." Mana is mana, HP is HP, and DI in Smash Bros is DI.

If they changed shields to always only last 5 hits, they would still be shields. We wouldn't call them "5-hit-barriers" all of a sudden, even though they work drastically different.

If they changed air dodges to only make you block 50% of the damage from attacks, it'd still be an airdodge. Not a "air-damage-reducer-dodge".

If they changed pivot grabs to require players to also press shield while they grab, it'd still be a pivot grab. Not a "pivot+shield-grab" just because it now requires an additional input.

If l-cancelling was changed to require you to press L and also hold down on the control stick, it'd still be called L-cancelling.

This is all because these mechanics would be UPDATING and REPLACING the old mechanic. So long as they are an update, and not a total bait-and-switch mechanically, then there's no reason to change the name.

Old DI doesn't exist anymore - it has been updated. It is still DI, just with different maths. Call it a different name if you like, but please be consistent and call everything in Smash by it's more accurate technical name. No "spot dodges", call them "immobile hitframe-obscurement." After all, technical accuracy is more important than making this game not sound ridiculously over-technical at tournament streams. Let's not make ourselves seem uncouth and untechnical on the MLG stage.


If Smash 5 has DI math that make it possible for you to press the airdodge button while DI-ing to increase the potency of your DI - it'd still be DI. They could make it so you have to use the d-pad to DI, and it'd still be DI. They could make it only move you 5 degrees in any direction, and it'd still be DI. They could make it so you turn into Sakurai whenever you DI - and it'd be DI. They could make you KO automatically whenever you DI incorrectly - and it'd still be DI.

But that's just me coming from a commentator and tournament perspective. the NBA could change the technicalities of what an alley-oop is - but dang it if anybody is gonna get rid of that name.

 

[Chiroz]

This new version of DI does different things, but from a gameplay perspective, it offers the same "change where you go when you get knocked around" mechanic to the player. This is what we are talking about when we say "it is the same gameplay dynamic." Mana is mana, HP is HP, and DI in Smash Bros is DI.

If they changed shields to always only last 5 hits, they would still be shields. We wouldn't call them "5-hit-barriers" all of a sudden, even though they work drastically different.

If they changed air dodges to only make you block 50% of the damage from attacks, it'd still be an airdodge. Not a "air-damage-reducer-dodge".

If they changed pivot grabs to require players to also press shield while they grab, it'd still be a pivot grab. Not a "pivot+shield-grab" just because it now requires an additional input.

If l-cancelling was changed to require you to press L and also hold down on the control stick, it'd still be called L-cancelling.

This is all because these mechanics are UPDATED and REPLACING the only mechanic. So long as they are an update, and not a total bait-and-switch mechanically, then there's no reason to change the name.


If Smash 5 has DI math that make it possible for you to press the airdodge button while DI-ing to increase the potency of your DI - it'd still be DI. They could make it so you have to use the d-pad to DI, and it'd still be DI. They could make it only move you 5 degrees in any direction, and it'd still be DI. They could make it so you turn into Sakurai whenever you DI - and it'd be DI. They could make you KO automatically whenever you DI incorrectly - and it'd still be DI.

But that's just me coming from a commentator and tournament perspective. the NBA could change the technicalities of what an alley-oop is - but dang it if anybody is gonna get rid of that name.

The problem with every one of those examples is that they don't change what you as the player have to do when performing the technique.

 

[Conda]

The problem with every one of those examples is that they don't change what you as the player have to do when performing the technique.

Half of those hypotheticals demanded players to change what/how you are pressing the buttons, just like Smash 4's DI mechanic.

Just because we now have to press the stick in towards the stage now doesn't make VI radically different. Especially since the % extension per stock is basically what DI in melee offered (as new tests show in the VI thread). This is not a brand new mechanic unseen in smash brothers. That would be saying "we could never change how we are knocked back."

We can now, just slightly differently due to the designers meshing "DI" and "SDI" together, essentially. No reason to spring up a new name, especially one that is alienating to anyone who is curious what the smash scene is all about and wondering how chill and down to earth they are. Renaming a technique largely due to new math behind the physics is taking things a bit far, ignoring the whole purpose of naming techniques in a competitive gaming community. We are getting slightly insular if we are going to continue renaming mechanics into more technical-sounding ones solely due to under-the-hood alterations.

 

[Meru.]

I don't see any benefit from calling this VI or Vectoring over Knockback Influence (KI). Knockback Influence covers the process accurately, it's a very clear and simple name, and it can be shortened to KI.

VI and Vectoring are also accurate and short, but they're not clear nor simple for reasons already stated by many posters before me. What the hell is a vector anyway? We're not all physics experts here.

The only reason why people vote for VI/Vectoring over KI is because that's what Strong_Bad called it when he discovered it... and that's four days ago. You're not going to tell me people have got used to this term in four days already, are you.

 

[InfiniteTripping]

You're kinda missing the subtext behind what I'm saying, though. "Vectoring" in and of itself isn't exactly concise. It's more likely to lend itself to verbiage to the average Joe. Nobody needs a bloody physics lesson when they hear the words "directional influence." It speaks for itself. I guess you could say I'm also speaking for the superfluity of this kinda talk. Keep it simple, keep it terse, keep it to the point---that is the best way to indoctrinate people into this community. They can learn the complicated **** later.

So, yeah. Regardless, call it what you want. As long as you understand it, there shouldn't be a problem. This topic is getting kinda tired and circular and semantic. And by "kinda," I mean it's getting grating on all sides.

Smooth Criminal

The term "vector" is taught in beginner's geometry classes. It's really not a super technical term. All it means is magnitude and direction, which is what the new mechanic is. I mean really, is that so complicated to understand? In fact it simplifies it to a single word rather than complicates it by calling it something it is not. If you tell people it is directional influence, it in no way speaks for itself: it is giving people the impression that it only covers direction and not also magnitude. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, or why we have to hold to a prior definition that doesn't describe what is going on anymore much at all.

 

[InfiniteTripping]

VI and Vectoring are also accurate and short, but they're not clear nor simple for reasons already stated by many posters before me. What the hell is a vector anyway? We're not all physics experts here.

Magnitude and direction. Not really a complicated term. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to understand it. It is taught to 8th graders.

 

[Conda]

Magnitude and direction. Not really a complicated term. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to understand it. It is taught to 8th graders.

"I learned what right angles were in grade 6. Let's make sure we call purely vertical recoveries "ninety degree recoveries."
I mean, 'vertical' recovery is fine and all, but "ninety degree recovery" is more technically accurate, and everybody should know what that means. Thus it's a better name."

Is this your stance? Just trying to clarify how else this line of logic can apply to other circumstances.
There are a ton of names for mechanics in smash that could be named more technically and accurately - are you going to be consistent and claim they need to be renamed as well? Why was DI fine - it did not explain the mechanics at play for what allowed you to change your direction. L cancelling does not include technical terms - it's just the name of a button on the controller. PSH! We learned more things in school - we should apply those things to the names of all the mechanics in Smash Bros.

The nintendo fighting game.

Honestly - justifying a name because we all learned the meaning of the name in school is not an argument that measures up to other stances in this thread.

All kidding aside, I'm enjoying this discussion and mean no offense to anybody. I'm as friendly as they come, but I am passionate about this topic because it is part of a trend I've seen happen in Smash as well as other competitive gaming communities. My mantra includes avoiding the drive that causes us to start ignoring how broad the gaming scene is, and how easy it is to alienate people and viewers due to our own intimidating inclusivity and technical elitism.



Also, not everywhere has the same educational system, and not everyone cares about math and cares to retain that information. Also, not everyone knows how cool the competitive smash community is, and names like VI with reasonings such as yours would almost definitely turn the majority of competitive gamers away.

Starcraft and LoL are more technical and mechanically complex games that have more reasonable names. They've managed to have a more 'lets not get too convoluted and inclusive, guys' approach to making things palatable for non-gamer viewers. And they are very successful games for non-gamers to watch due to this, and many other things.

If we keep ignoring the viewers and newcomers to the scene, then smash will continue to be seen as 'the group of elitist technical-obsessed players of nintendo's fighting game.'
It's an incorrect stigma we have from a long time ago, and we are thankfully shedding it. The general gaming community is starting to see competitive smash as a cool and approachable thing.
Let's not give the world a reason to go back to seeing us that way, yeah? I know I won't be giving them a reason to - I'm sticking to palatable names like DI, because I care about more than just technically accurate naming.

If you come up with over-technical names that ignore a large portion of the smash and gaming scene, don't expect everyone to use those names. Especially people who are responsible for performing competitive commentary and community outreach. If I am going to do my job well and help grow the competitive scene, I have to avoid no-nos like this.

 

[InfiniteTripping]

I don't think the argument that, well most people don't have a big vocabulary and they don't remember simple geometric terms so it is justified in calling it something that doesn't describe it accurately for their sake, is a very good argument. There's a cynicism there that says most people are too stupid, close-minded and unwilling to learn, and also it is a toleration of ignorance. I'm warming to the term Knockback Influencing even though I don't think even that term describes it very well either (since the new mechanic also works in situations where you are not technically being knocked back), but if someone needs something to sound more organic to the Smash terms in existence, it's better than directional influence.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

The term "vector" is taught in beginner's geometry classes. It's really not a super technical term. All it means is magnitude and direction, which is what the new mechanic is. I mean really, is that so complicated to understand? In fact it simplifies it to a single word rather than complicates it by calling it something it is not. If you tell people it is directional influence, it in no way speaks for itself: it is giving people the impression that it only covers direction and not also magnitude. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, or why we have to hold to a prior definition that doesn't describe what is going on anymore much at all.

Magnitude and direction. Not really a complicated term. You don't have to be Stephen Hawking to understand it. It is taught to 8th graders.

And I don't have to be Stephen Hawking to point out that you're being borderline pedantic by illustrating it thusly.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Conda]

I don't think the argument that, well most people don't have a big vocabulary and they don't remember simple geometric terms so it is justified in calling it something that doesn't describe it accurately for their sake, is a very good argument. There's a cynicism there that says most people are too stupid, close-minded and unwilling to learn, and also it is a toleration of ignorance. I'm warming to the term Knockback Influencing even though I don't think even that term describes it very well either (since the new mechanic also works in situations where you are not technically being knocked back), but if someone needs something to sound more organic to the Smash terms in existence, it's better than directional influence.

The name isn't supposed to describe the technical underbelly of the mechanic. It never is. It's supposed to convey the effect of the mechanic and make it learnable easily for people who are trying to learn it - aka newcomers.

Sakurai called it hitstun shuffling - does that explain the math behind the mechanic? Is that technically accurate? No, but it is evocative. Sakurai doesn't care because he is a game designer and better at naming game mechanics than many other people.

DI is slang now, and has become a 'word' of its own. We'll use it and it will have meaning and make sense once the acronym is explained. As someone who uses these words to talk about the game, and will be commentating competitive Smash 4 matches, I care about the word we use. To those who are simply going to be typing the word mostly - call it VI and Vectoring. It doesn't really matter. You won't have to deal with what makes it strange and counter-intuitive to say in speech and on mic/camera.
Especially when making content that tries to reach out to non-smashers and people who are curious what our scene is like.

 

[Overtaken]

The fact that we call something 'VI' is not liable to really turn anyone away from competitive smash. If they've gotten as far hearing it, they're already competitive or interested in competitive.

Wavedashing is not something that remotely explains itself and it's easily as difficult to explain as 'VI' or 'DI', yet it not only didnt dissuade people from the competitive scene, it essentially created it. Being able to grasp mildly technical and complex things are sort of necessary to competitive smash. The real problem is that we do not really have a cohesive, well written and flowing guide to the meta-game. Otherwise you have scrounge around smashboards or smashwiki to get information.

 

[TL?]

@ InfiniteTripping

The new DI involves vectoring, but it's not the only instance of vectoring in the game. Old DI as well as any movement in the game(running, jumping) is technically vectoring. Even though magnitute stayed the same, you're still changing your vector with old DI. You're still directing your character towards a (different) point. It's correct, but it's more technical than it needs to be and somewhat vague. Knockback Influence conveys more information and does so in layman's terms. You don't need to know what a vector is to use the mechanic correctly to survive or escape combos. It only makes the mechanic seem more difficult than it is. "Knockback Influence" is easier to understand and describes it perfectly.

 

[Conda]

The fact that we call something 'VI' is not liable to really turn anyone away from competitive smash. If they've gotten as far hearing it, they're already competitive or interested in competitive.

Wavedashing is not something that remotely explains itself and it's easily as difficult to explain as 'VI' or 'DI', yet it not only didnt dissuade people from the competitive scene, it essentially created it. Being able to grasp mildly technical and complex things are sort of necessary to competitive smash. The real problem is that we do not really have a cohesive, well written and flowing guide to the meta-game. Otherwise you have scrounge around smashboards or smashwiki to get information.

It's more about "Oh, they changed the name of this staple movement mechanic in their beloved series into a totally uncharacteristic mathematical name because the physics changed a bit?"